Panorama 21/10/19

OldMusicGuy

It's good to see both of these scandals get prime time TV but it was disappointing for me on two counts. First, it created the impression that the entire industry consists of these fund managers who are supposed to know everything when in fact we all know that is not the case. It didn't highlight the alternative way of passive investing (which IMO is much better for less experienced investors). All it did was to scare the "ordinary Joe" away from investing.

Second, it didn't highlight the role of HL. HL are the reason so many small investors got sucked in IMO - the lady featured in the programme was clearly an HL user. She did say that she backed up the friend's recommendation with "research" and was shown on the HL platform. That would have bombarded her with pro-Woodford messages.

ZingPowZing wrote: »

But surely the Hargreaves Lansdown proposition is that they do make those checks on behalf of the unsophisticated/uninterested/better things to do investor.

They don't, and the small print makes it clear they don't. However, their relentless positive view of Woodford did encourage people to invest with Woodford. It was one of the factors that influenced me to put a large sum into the Income Focus fund but I pulled the money out with a small loss once his investing direction became apparent to me. The Daily Fail guy should have been able to see the risks Woodford was taking but the small investor with limited could not be expected to.

roddydogs

Been said many times investments are not risk free, if you don't want risk go elsewhere.

Malthusian

bostonerimus wrote: »

Could the H&L "Wealth List" be construed as financial advice and hence could H&L be sued for bad advice?

No. Advice is a personalised recommendation. A list of 50 funds is not a recommendation.

Bear in mind that nine months ago I would have told you that London Capital & Finance didn't give anyone financial advice, but until the FCA decides to rip up the rulebook again, as it stands that is what regulated advice means.

The FCA are getting it in the neck for doing nothing but if they'd done something, i.e. put the fund into administration as soon as it breached the 10% unlisted share limit and did not redress the breach within 90 days (looking through the attempt to cheat by listing the shares on the side of a cowshed in Guernsey), they would have got pelters on the basis of "if they'd left it alone everything would have been fine". And no-one would have given them any credit.

eskbanker

msallen wrote: »

Indeed. Although it was not explicitly stated it was implied that all her investments were in the one fund. The Beeb would have fulfilled its public service criteria better by just spending half an hour telling people not to put all their eggs in one basket, regardless of who the basket maker was or how well made they think the basket is.

Seems to me that they largely abandoned the 'inform' and 'educate' aspects and chose to focus on 'entertain' instead, especially with the tired doorstep ambush trope....

As you say, the apparently reckless actions of the woman following her friend and claiming to have conducted some cursory due diligence weren't challenged at all and she was mostly soft-soaped with heavily-loaded questions like 'what do you think of the protection you had' and 'how long can you keep losing £300/day for'!

itwasntme001

I watched this last night. Afterwards i watched another programme about petty crime and investigators/police catching these low level criminals (usually stealing money in the £10s of pounds). These people were presumably from poor ethnic minority backgrounds.


The contrast is very eye-opening. On one hand you have a fund manager raking in fees at the expense of many middle class families but getting away with it (arguably woodford trying to influence valuers and potential conflict of interest in the dodgy companies he invested in could be seen as some sort of crime). On the other hand you have people trying to save a few quid given their poor background and grtting caught red-handed and being fined multiples of the theft and in some cases criminal punishment.


Both cases are not acceptable but very interesting to see the contrast between low level crime and high level financial "crime".

Thrugelmir

bostonerimus wrote: »

Hmm, maybe just own VLS60 and see what happens in 30 years.

May have worked in the past. What is the 40% invested into at the current time?

itwasntme001

bostonerimus wrote: »

Hmm, maybe just own VLS60 and see what happens in 30 years.
My portfolio is becoming more equity heavy as I've stopped rebalancing, but I'll leave it alone and see what happens in the next 30 years.

Why would you want to own any bonds at current yields over a 30 year time horizon?


Your strategy at this point in time seems a bit gung-ho tbh. Record low yields and a stock market that is at its highs with projections for forward returns forecast to be very low. Just does not feel right to be invested like this at this stage.

Brian65

itwasntme001 wrote: »

I watched this last night. Afterwards i watched another programme about petty crime and investigators/police catching these low level criminals (usually stealing money in the £10s of pounds). These people were presumably from poor ethnic minority backgrounds.


The contrast is very eye-opening. On one hand you have a fund manager raking in fees at the expense of many middle class families but getting away with it (arguably woodford trying to influence valuers and potential conflict of interest in the dodgy companies he invested in could be seen as some sort of crime). On the other hand you have people trying to save a few quid given their poor background and grtting caught red-handed and being fined multiples of the theft and in some cases criminal punishment.


Both cases are not acceptable but very interesting to see the contrast between low level crime and high level financial "crime".

Yes I saw that. The coppers looking for the moped snatch and grab gangs remarked they are all from deprived backgrounds 'nobody with a comfortable life would take the risks for the rewards they do'
I don't condone theft, but it left me with little sympathy for those who walk down the street flaunting a £10k watch.
Mine cost £1.50 posted from China, does everything I need, and anybody who tries to mug me for it can have it

itwasntme001

Brian65 wrote: »

Yes I saw that. The coppers looking for the moped snatch and grab gangs remarked they are all from deprived backgrounds 'nobody with a comfortable life would take the risks for the rewards they do'
I don't condone theft, but it left me with little sympathy for those who walk down the street flaunting a £10k watch.
Mine cost £1.50 posted from China, does everything I need, and anybody who tries to mug me for it can have it

Yes, whilst some people look down on petty thieves, it helps to see from their perspective and position that the risk-reward is worth it. I would do the same.


I am cheap so i think petty thieves would never even consider stealing from me.

Sailtheworld

itwasntme001 wrote: »

Why would you want to own any bonds at current yields over a 30 year time horizon?

Your strategy at this point in time seems a bit gung-ho tbh. Record low yields and a stock market that is at its highs with projections for forward returns forecast to be very low. Just does not feel right to be invested like this at this stage.

It's the first time I've seem VLS60 referred to as 'gung ho' investing.

What feels right to you at this stage?